Crank's page

After three years, four character deaths, five guest players, and probably 10-12 gallons of whiskey, our Skull & Shackles campaign wrapped up last night. It's been a wild ride, filled with lots of plunder, tons of NPCs, hours of pirate music, and loads of interweaved character arcs.

This is the first pre-written campaign I've run, so I can't really compare it to others. But I can say that I REALLY enjoyed running the Island of Empty Eyes arc (I actually thought I would hate it and considered skipping most of it -- glad I didn't do that), and I REALLY hated ship-to-ship combat. We tried it once and never again. Also wasn't a fan of the fleet battles, and in retrospect would have skipped over those encounters and added more on-deck encounters while describing the battle raging around the PCs.

I liked the idea of Infamy/Disrepute, but in the end there wasn't really a good payoff for all the work the PCs put into it. The Plunder mechanic worked really well and I may incorporate something similar into future campaigns.

The best part, as always, is hearing how much fun my players had -- makes all the work outside each session absolutely worth it.

On the Paizo site, Stoneskin, Communal has a material component cost of "granite and diamond dust worth 250 gp per creature affected".

However, the print version of Ultimate Combat (First Printing, August 2011) states the cost as "granite and diamond dust worth 100 gp per creature affected".

Stoneskin has a cost of 250 gp, so it would make sense that the communal version has a component cost of 250 per creature affected.

Is there an official ruling on which is correct?

Hey everybody, I've been using "The Devil We Know" series in PFS season 1 for the first story arc of our podcast, Misfits of the Inner Sea. Until now, I've been mostly satisfied with the series, but we're coming up on the final "episode" and it's a little anticlimactic to say the least. I intend on beefing it up and making it a little more epic.

This is where you come in. I've set up a Facebook page for the podcast with a poll to help me determine the "final battle" against the cult of Nature's Cataclysm. The scenario calls for yet another battle against the derro, but I don't think that will be very interesting or conclusive.

If you have any additional ideas to make the session more epic, I'd be glad to hear them. Post here or on the Facebook wall, I'll check out your ideas either way and look forward to hearing them. I'd like to continue to solicit the ideas of our listeners to make for a much more interesting (and hopefully hilarious) experience for everybody involved!

As promised ages and ages ago, I have finally overcome the various barriers to get a Pathfinder actual play podcast going.

Currently, we have four episodes out that cover the first half of a four-hour session. The table talk is kept to a minimum and the majority of banter is game-related. I'll be releasing new episodes as I get them edited down for content, which will probably be once a week.

More episodes will come down the chute once my buddies and I can get together for another session. I'm going to keep the format this way because I feel it extremely helps keep the out-of-game talk to a minimum.

Please come check us out! Download all the episodes and subscribe, and if you like it, give us a five star rating in iTunes. Maybe we can make the "New & Noteworthy" section.

You can find our iTunes page here (which offers links to launch iTunes to the appropriate page): Misfits of the Inner Sea.

If you don't have iTunes, you can download them on the boring ol' host page.

Hope you enjoy listening as much as we did playing! And let us know what you think, whether on here or at motispodcast@gmail.com.

Would there be any interest in a new actual-play podcast? I have some equipment lying around that would work well and I thoroughly enjoy actual play podcasts like WOTC's Acquisitions, Inc. and Beer & Battle. I would likely record an 8-hour session and break it up into 8 separate hour-long episodes. Makes it easier on me (and whoever I can find to join).

If so, what do you look for in an actual-play? Comedy? Interesting stories? Rules-heavy tactics? Lots of battle? Roleplay? I'd like to get an idea what people want to listen to before I plunge in!

I've been a GM for six years, starting with the 3.5 ruleset back in 2007 and running campaigns for friends on and off. I've learned how to balance encounters, let each PC have a moment to shine, create sweeping storyline arcs that tie everything together, give PCs freedom to explore without railroading them, and strike a balance between rules lawyer and gracious host.

My gaming groups have never been as big into the storytelling as I have, which is fine. As the GM, I should be more interested in it than them; however, my group treats our bi-weekly meetings as mere social events with a side of Pathfinder. Any attempts to introduce roleplay are met with disdain and the revealing of cell phones to watch videos, crack jokes, and otherwise get off topic.

I spend hours each week finding interesting developments for PCs, writing intriguing encounters, scheduling sessions, finding great background music to accompany the game, e-mailing them asking for ideas about their characters, and updating our campaign journal online. Not because I have to, but because I enjoy creating an immersive world for my friends to experience.

Last week was the final straw, the last crumbling bastion of willpower that finally cracked beneath the weight of player disrespect. I can now be added to the list of failed GMs who threw in the towel in the face of overwhelming odds. At my players' request, I created a special Halloween episode that involved the exploration of a haunted house. One showed up two hours late. The rest BS'd at the table for a full hour and a half, accomplishing nothing. When I finally called for initiative, I achieved perhaps 40% of their attention. The rest was saved for cell phones and off-topic joking. No interest in roleplay and only minimal interest at the swarm of undead heading their direction. They couldn't even remember the name of the NPCs they've interacted with the last five sessions -- not to mention we never made it to the haunted house. Three-quarters of my session weren't even touched because I couldn't get them back on track.

When the night was done, I decided I was done. Next few days, I worked with one of the players who seems to understand my plight and we agreed to switch to him as GM.

My year-and-a-half epic campaign came to a screeching halt. All the NPCs they had interacted with are gone, my 44,000 word campaign bible I set up for them is now utterly worthless, and the three major campaign arcs I designed were reduced to ash in mere seconds.

When I sent the e-mail to the group explaining that the GM duties were switching and we were no longer playing my campaign, I was met with: "Okay", "Cool", and "Sounds good." That's it. One didn't even bother to respond.

Hey, at least I get to try playing an Inquisitor now.

The main point of this post isn't to ask for advice... I'm aware of some of the things I did wrong, but I realize that most of this is out of my control. My group doesn't want to play as much as I do, period. I mostly want to get this off my chest, get a little encouragement from the great community here, and point out that if you have a GM who strives to be fair, cares about your characters as much as you do, and doesn't adopt the "GM-versus-player" attitude, thank him/her next time you see them. They work hard to make sure everybody's having fun. Make sure they're having fun, too. Or else go home and play Skyrim.

Oh, and if anybody lives in the Denver metro area and wants to consider getting together once a week to play, who knows. Maybe that would work better than relying on my friends as players.

...and I'm not talking "class diversity" in a socio-political sense.

My gaming group has subtly shifted members over the years, but several have been with me since the "beginning". I've been the DM since our first campaign and we're currently on the third.

We've had practically the same party since the first time we played: a fighter, a rogue, another rogue, a wizard (sometimes a sorcerer), and a cleric. I'm constantly encourage the players to try new classes, that I'll work them into the campaign and go "easy" on them while they learn a new class. I can understand the hesitancy of new players to try new classes since they're still learning the game basics. However, I don't understand the desire for people who have been playing for 20 or 30 years to stick with the same class again and again.

PC death is no stranger to my campaigns, and while I don't use it as a mechanism to force my players to switch characters/classes, I do remind them that their current PC's death could be an opportunity to try something new. However, they never take me up on the offer.

The only "problem" I see with this is that it sort of becomes stale. When designing sessions and encounters I only have four or five classes to keep in mind, and while I try to continually introduce new ideas to keep things fresh, inevitably many of the sessions feel quite similar.

It should also be noted here that I'm more interested in the PC development than the actual players are, so that may have something to do with it.

My questions for you: Is it important to encourage players to switch? Important to facilitate new options? If so, is there a better way to do so? Or should I be satisfied with their less-complex kick-down-the-door style of play?

I know this topic has been touched on in the past, but I'd like some clarification.

Do clerics get their Domain Spells every time they level up, regardless of if they could normally use it? Or do they have to wait until they could normally use it?

For example, one of my players chose the Fire Domain. Table 3-5 (pg. 40) of the Core Rulebook suggests that he can't use Produce Flame until 3rd level and Fireball until 5th (based on the "+1" rule). But the text on page 44 makes it sound like he can use Fireball at 3rd level.

If a cleric can't use the Domain Spell until they meet the normal requirements, then what good are domains like the Healing Domain? Cure Moderate Wounds is a 2nd level cleric spell but Table 3-5 suggests the cleric is given it as a "bonus" at 3rd level. Why take it at 3rd level when you can take it at 2nd?

Thanks in advance for any clarification you can provide!